btw I laugh at how you and Ray quote or support the clearly mentally obtuse person known as richard ryan (his spelling) when it suits your purposes, when otherwise you would also disregard him as a village idiot or worse.

I don’t give a shiny turd who or what he is. If he makes a valid point and I feel inclined then I’ll agree with it. Same goes for you. I am less interested in whether I like the speaker than whether I agree with what they have said. You should try it sometime.

Sinodinis is a cheerleader for lowering workers’ pay. His maiden speech in the Senate was basically a defence of Workchoices. Now it turns out he’s collecting $2,000 an hour, for doing nothing more than acting as a conduit between a business set up to score public contracts and the Liberal Party. And he’s guilty of poor judgement if not something worse. And the silence of Liberal Party cheerleaders is deafening.

D Do you think when I am on my death-bed, I will say, I wish I could have spelled better—-now GD, which sexual position produced a f*ck-wit like you— you smell of greed, take a shower, you remind me of the Union Jack= I am all right jack, well both of you can get well and truly f^cked, along with your idol, that shiny Dutch racist turd, Andrew Bolt. Still getting all those tax-free dollars(nixers) at the muso game I see, no wonder you have to use a (screen name)?.

You mean you’ll “hold your silence” don’t you, GD? No one here is judging him, we’re discussing him and his involvement in the shady-looking AWH. As we did (all of us) about Thomson, well before he was charged. Stonewalling is what you’re doing … and it’s weak. Come on, what’s your opinion (not judgement) of what is known so far? It’s public knowledge, you can talk about it.

100 hours for $200,000, =$2000 @ hour, come off it, this is scandlalous, not bad money. for a slimy scum-bag. “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” and this is the slimy turd who wants workers wages dropped to about $10 @ hour,—— over my dead body, you physically repugnant economic terrorist.

Come on GD, have a read of this SMH article (if you haven’t already) and tell us what you think of Sinodinos’ involvement with AWH. It’s obvious that the company was a sham, set up with the aim of rorting favourable State Govt contracts. And they actually got one! It’s obvious that Sinodinos must have known the founders and key shareholders (ie the Obeids and their lawyer) were shady and that the money they invested came from corrupt coal mining deals. It’s obvious that Sinodinos was up to his neck in this. Here’s just a small extract:

Even more astounding was the $75,000 donations to the Liberal Party. As NSW Liberal treasurer at the time, Sinodinos was effectively the recipient and as an AWH director he was also the donor – but still he maintains he did not know.

Sinodinos stood to make $20 million if the NSW government agreed to give AWH the Sydney Water PPP. With his rolled-gold political contacts Sinodinos was signed on to open the necessary doors. And open them he did. There were meetings with Premier Barry O’Farrell and a raft of relevant Liberal ministers. But Sinodinos didn’t stop there …

Bottom line? It seems (in my opinion) that Sinodinos needed money to afford his lavish lifestyle and support his socialite wife (20 years his junior), the $100,000 per year rented Sydney Harbour home, the leases on 2 luxury cars (a Merc and a Jag) and his 3 young children. He was living beyond his means. So he willingly got involved with this AWH scam and its shady characters from the outset, accepting the amazing offer of $200,000 per year for just two hours work per week, plus a 5% share in the company (the 5% is currently worth $3.75 million but potentially $20 million had he pulled off the big one) in return for being ‘the front man’ and ‘opening doors’ and lobbying for Govt contracts. Meanwhile overseeing (as Chair & Director) a company that was in a financial mess, lodging dubious expense claims from Sydney Water and basically insolvent.

And this is the guy who Abbott made Assistant Treasurer? No wonder you’re staying silent

Ray
the bottom line is entirely dependant upon the question of the legality of anything that Sinodinos has done here, if its not been an illegal act by the man then its game set and match in his favour.

I’ll hold my judgment until Sinodinos is formally accused or charged. Just like you lefties did with Craig Thomson and that slime Williamson, both of whom have now been charged.

Actually I thought both were guilty and said so at the time. So don’t let the facts get in the way of your smears.

As for ‘shiny turd’, really, can’t you argue in a more mature manner than that? Even Ray doesn’t resort to scatological references.

I have seen Iain use the term “bullshit” several times before. Are you going to tell him what not to say, while you are on your high horse?
There’s nothing more ridiculous than people who bitch and moan about ‘political correctness’ then lecture others on how they speak.

The bottom line is entirely dependant upon the question of the legality of anything that Sinodinos has done here, if its not been an illegal act by the man then its game set and match in his favour.

You mean you are prepared to overlook poor morality, ethics or judgement, or the feathering of one’s nest, so long as it’s not “illegal”. Well you can overlook it when there’s a coalition person involved. Sinodinis probably won’t be charged but if he ends up back on the front bench, the Liberal Party will be tainted and your prospects for reelection will drop by a few points.

Jeff
The term “bullshit” is, in common parlance a descriptor of an untruth where as to call someone a “slimy turd” is just a scatological insult.
As it happens were GD to admonish me for my word choices I would wear it with good grace.

You mean you are prepared to overlook poor morality, ethics or judgement, or the feathering of one’s nest, so long as it’s not “illegal”. Well you can overlook it when there’s a coalition person involved. Sinodinis probably won’t be charged but if he ends up back on the front bench, the Liberal Party will be tainted and your prospects for reelection will drop by a few points.

The term “bullshit” is, in common parlance a descriptor of an untruth where as to call someone a “slimy turd” is just a scatological insult.

Yes but I didn’t call anyone a “slimy turd”. Perhaps you and GD need some new reading glasses.

As it happens were GD to admonish me for my word choices I would wear it with good grace.

I doubt that somehow. But in any case, GD shouldn’t be telling people how or what to write. Especially given his history, e.g. making fun of blackfellas for eating witchetty grubs. He must be a strange kind of muso (if that’s what he really is) if he takes offence to the word “turd”.

As for Arty Sino, you are right, things have yet to play out and it’s all just chitter chatter at the moment.

It’s more than “chitter chatter” – it’s mostly eveidence given under oath at the ICAC inquiry and it’s not looking good for Sinodinos. On the basis of what we’ve heard already alone (and I think that might be just the tip of the iceberg), I’d say there’s every chance he’ll be charged. At the very least a charge under the Corporations Act looks likely for failing his duties as a Director. Whatever happens, politically this guy is already a massive liability and it would not look good for Abbott if he brings him back to the front bench. Anyone involved in the AWH scam is not the type of person you want in Parliament, let alone as Assistant Treasurer.

Well when I say “chitter chatter” I mean all the talk here about what is going to happen. We can’t know that for certain. But as you say Ray it is not looking good for the bald fella. Seems like he quite enjoyed living the life of Riley but wasn’t making enough to do it. That alone is often a sign of someone prepared to bend the rules. Even if he is not charged or directly implicated with any corruption, he will forever be stained by association with AWH and Obeid and dodgy dealings. On that basis alone Abbott won’t be able to bring him back into the ministry. It would be a slap in the face for ministerial standards if he does. I expect it will be RIP Arty’s political career, 2011-2014.

Like a lot of bloggers I have most of the common swear words programmed into my spam filter thus if you write “fuck” or “cunt” ect into your comment it will be automatically held in moderation. Not banned, but just held until I get around to clicking it to public visibility. I do this to try to keep the site family and workplace friendly. Mostly I’m really laid back about the use of profanity but I also think that such fruity language is best as a garnish rather than a main course or a staple in our reading and writing diet.

Not sure what your point is Iain. I rarely swear and never use the “f” and “c” words. The word “turd” I used as an aside, not a term of abuse. And it is rather silly to suggest that “bullshit” is OK but “turd” is not. You right wingers sure do invented moral outrage well.

Jeff
My point is simple I would prefer that no use profanity or any sort of coarse language here but contrary to your suggestion that I would not tolerate it I do, I’m not fond of it but I not going to waste may energy trying to police the language of comments.

• Rouse Hill Infrastructure Consortium formed as a not-for-profit business in 1990. The company won the rights to build water and sewer infrastructure in Sydney’s fast-growing north-west two years later. The contract was on a “costs plus” basis, allowing it to bill Sydney Water for expenses.

• Lawyer Nicholas Di Girolamo joins as a director in 2005 and the company transforms. It starts to massively increase the bills it submits to Sydney Water and begins paying lavish salaries.

• Eddie Obeid jnr is hired in 2007 and the company changes its name to Australian Water Holdings in 2008. AWH refuses to open its books to Sydney Water when chief executive Kerry Schott questions AWH’s bills.

• AWH starts to lobby for a $1 billion public private partnership to supply more infrastructure. Under Dr Schott, Sydney Water resists. AWH lobbies the NSW Labor government directly for the PPP and starts to lobby the NSW Liberal opposition.

Advertisement • Arthur Sinodinos is appointed director of AWH in 2008.

• AWH donates more than $43,000 to Barry O’Farrell’s election campaign in 2010 and Sinodinos is appointed chairman in November 2010.

• The Obeid family take a $3 million stake in 2010, though Sinodinos says he had no knowledge of this.

• Sinodinos was finance director of the NSW Liberal Party when he was employed by AWH.

• Sinodinos lobbies O’Farrell on behalf of AWH. He stands down as AWH chairman to become Liberal senator for NSW. He relinquishes his shares in AWH when the company’s Obeid links are revealed.

Questions Senator Sinodinos still faces

• Does he maintain, as he told Parliament, he was unaware AWH was “financially linked” with the Obeid family, when Eddie Obeid jnr was one of just 10 employees?

• Does he believe $200,000 for 100 hours of work was a fair rate of pay?

• Does he still maintain he was unaware of tens of thousands of dollars in political donations from AWH to the NSW Liberal Party when he was a director of AWH and the party’s honorary treasurer?

• Does he believe AWH’s contract with Sydney Water represented good value for the NSW taxpayer?

• Was he aware donations to the Liberal Party from AWH were being channelled from Sydney Water? If not, what did he do as chairman of the company? Did he ever discuss with state Coalition MPs the position of former Sydney Water chief Kerry Schott or the make-up of the board?

• What did he discuss with Barry O’Farrell and Brad Hazzard when he met them in his capacity as AWH chairman?

Yes, Sinodinos has a LOT to answer. Got any opinion on this yet, GD, or are you still “reserving judgement”?

FEDERAL Labor is asking way, way too much of the public with its high-minded moralistic posturing over Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos.

Sinodinos, who stood aside as assistant treasurer on Wednesday to give the government clear air in the lead-up to the May Budget, has been called as a witness in the current NSW ICAC hearings into whether former NSW Labor heavyweights Eddie Obeid, Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly misused their positions to favour Australian Water Holdings.

No allegations of any criminal activity have been made against the NSW Senator, a former chief of staff to former prime minister John Howard, with an enviable reputation for honesty and integrity.

Yet former AWU boss and Labor leader Bill Shorten, who is likely to be called before the royal commission headed by former High Court justice Dyson Heydon into alleged trade union corruption, has occupied almost all Question Time with his attempts to besmirch Sinodinos and by association, Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Regardelss of Aker’s views on the ALP’s questioning of the Govt, that is not actually making a comment on it, GD. You “haven’t looked at the matter closely” yet? Why not? Scroll up (or down if you’re in the admin page). You can read can’t you?

No allegations of any criminal activity have been made against the NSW Senator

So what? There has been enough evidence presented to ICAC about him (and enough discovered on public record) to make his dealings a matter of the very highest public interest. Look, GD, this is potentially the biggest financial scandal a front bencher has ever been involved in. And this is a blog where we discuss matters politics, is it not? This is a matter politic of huge import, is it not? The guy is/was the ASSISTANT TREASURER and the implications from what is known are already out in the public arena. Yet you can’t be bothered “looking into it” or offerring an opinion? While you offer opinion on every minute little thing involving the ALP. Pathetic.

Ray, there are other issues that you have either ignored or sidestepped such as the AWU slush fund set up by Labor’s Gillard. That investigation has been going on for some time. In this Weekend Australian there is an 8,000 word analysis by Hedley Thomas and Michael Smith into the slush fund and the $60 million contract handed to Theiss. Before you scoff, read the article.

This isn’t old news, it’s a crime that has been covered up for a very long time. You have previously said that there was no substance to claims that Gillard knowingly set up a slush fund while at Slater and Gordon.

Thanks to Michael Smith, Hedley Thomas and The Australian the real story is now coming to light. This matter is of huge political importance, yet you have repeatedly denied or ignored the issue.

As I have already said I’ll wait until the ACAC makes their decision about the matter that Sinodinos is connected to.

Meanwhile you have repeatedly denied or ignored the issue of the slush fund set up by Labor’s Gillard.

GD, I did not “ignore or sidestep” the AWU matter. And if I did say “there was no substance to claims that Gillard knowingly set up a slush fund while at Slater and Gordon” that is further proof that I commented on it, unlike you are doing here re Sinodinos. To satisfy you though:

I have no doubt whatsoever that the AWU matter stinks to high heaven. Gillard seems to have profitted from her ‘work’ as a lawyer in setting it up too. Not by way of receiving lawyer’s fees (it was a freebie for her boyfriend) but possibly in receiving free renos to a little shack she owned in Melbourne’s inner-north suburbs. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit and if she’s ever charged for it, well, good. I’m no fan of hers, as you know.

I have never shyed away or gone ‘mum’ on an issue involving shady or corrupt dealings with the ALP. I’ve commented on it. If I defended them in any of those comments (and I don’t believe I overly did that), so what? That means I did not hide behind the same excuse you are using here re Sinodinos and the very serious things we already know. You can defend him in your comments, that’s fine, but for God’s sake be a man and speak up.

So what? I had a point of view on it and I spoke up, then and now. The only point you’re making is to say my views have changed. Even if they have, so what? You, on the other hand haven’t said anything about Sinodinos except:

“I don’t know enough about the issue”

Bullshit. You know as much as I do. You’ve read the articles, haven’t you? If not, then that’s just putting your head-in-the-sand. On purpose. No excuse there.

Yet you’re always quick to jump on an issue showing the ALP in a bad light.

Why don’t you stop this pissy way of presenting yourself and man up? Stop fingerpointing too would be a good idea – you’re not on solid ground here and you’re coming across as too weak-kneed to even defend your man. Get a backbone, GD.

When Counsel Assisting Geoffrey Watson estimated that Senator Sinodinos spent (ONLY) between 25 and 45 hours a year working as a director for AWH for a $200,000 salary, Senator Sinodinos replied: “Does that include travel time?. He noted that he sometimes travelled 90 minutes to a meeting.

We already know what Ray thinks, Iain. So why don’t you do a post on it? Or do you think you will end up in “Liberal Hell” if you write a post criticizing a coalition MP?

Me thinks if Arthur Sino-deny-everything was in the ALP, you would be all over this like pubic crabs. The bloke is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt.

BTW I like the comment at the end of this post…. it doesn’t matter if the government has dodgy MPs, so long as they stand aside when caught. They’re only bad if they don’t stand aside. What a lot of runny cow droppings!

I find it interesting that you think that for something to be immoral or flat out wrong, it has to be “illegal”.
Either you see these things very simplistically or you’re giving Arty more leeway than you would give others in the same situation.

So far though Nothing that I have heard suggest that Sidonous has done anything illegal

Oh come on, Iain. Absolutely everything that we have heard at ICAC strongly suggests that Sinodinos was knowingly and corruptly involved in fleecing a NSW Govt Dept for $ millions. To deny that is to be wilfully blind to the issues.

Ray
in legal terms there is a big difference between “fleecing a NSW Govt Dept for $ millions” and committing a crime, I’m neither surprised nor angered by what has so far revealed. My only thought is a more general one that there is great merit in a decentralised water infrastructure where each individual house has its own storage. If you can’t do that then water infrastructure should never be privatised because as a natural monopoly it is far better off in government hands.

Iain, you were pretty quick to jump on Thomson when he was just reported to be “fleecing” a union credit card, which later was proved to be “commiting a crime”, but for some reason you say about Sinodinos, “I’m neither surprised nor angered by what has so far revealed.” Come on, Iain, givemeabreak, what is already known is damning of Sinodinos and, don’t forget, we are talking about evidence given under oath here, not just speculation. And then there was his own inept performance under questioning:

Despite chugging his way through a couple of litres of Sydney water, no amount of water appeared to refresh Senator Arthur Sinodinos’ failing memory as he endured hours of cross-examination over his role in a company at the centre of a corruption probe.

The problem for Sinodinos is that over the four years he was deputy and then chairman at Australian Water Holdings serious corruption was taking place under his nose but he saw nothing, did nothing and asked no questions.

He failed to notice that the company had splashed out $164,000 on a corporate box at Olympic stadium or that it had run up $28,000 in limousine hire. Sinodinos was quick to point out he had only once used a hire car to go to Parramatta. It was the ratepayers of Sydney Water who were being billed for these outrageous expenses which Sinodinos claimed to know nothing about.

The senator claimed that he was too busy ”transitioning” to the Senate in September 2011 to know that the company was in such dire financial straits it had to tap the family of corrupt former kingpin Eddie Obeid to inject $400,000 to pay its tax bill.

Even harder to believe was that while the company was going to hell in a hand basket it was paying up to $17,000 a month to Liberal Party lobbyists.
One of these was Sinodinos’ good friend Paul Nicolaou. Although Nicolaou and Sinodinos saw each other weekly due to their respective positions as the party’s chief fund-raiser and treasurer, Sinodinos claims he was unaware that for the three years Nicolaou’s company was raking in $5000 a month courtesy of AWH.

”Are you saying to us that Nicolaou not once during that period of time ever said to you, ‘Hey Arthur, thanks very much for the retainer’?” asked counsel assisting, Geoffrey Watson, SC.
”No”, replied Sinodinos.

The senator was similarly unaware that AWH had donated $72,000 to the Liberal Party while he was on the board of AWH and at the same time party treasurer.

The inquiry has heard that the company was billing Sydney Water millions of dollars each year for salaries of its directors, despite there being only 10 employees and one contract.

Sinodinos was defensive about his own $200,000 salary for being a ”door-opener” and for working what the inquiry heard was less than 45 hours a year.
He protested his travelling time from the CBD to AWH’s offices in Bella Vista, in the city’s north-west, had not been added in. And what about the times at functions at people’s houses that he had promoted AWH? demanded Sinodinos.

”Should we add on 90 seconds over a gin and tonic to the other 45 hours a year,” quipped Watson.

But perhaps most crushing for Sinodinos was the revelation that his successor, Michael Costa, the former State Labor treasurer, did what Sinodinos failed to do throughout his four years at AWH – go through the company’s books. Costa has told the inquiry he was horrified by what he found.

And you’re not “surprised or angered” by that but you were over Thomson’s then alleged porking by credit card? Maybe you’re a tad disappointed in your Tone’s choice for Assistant Treasurer though?

Ray
How can you know that such events were not “mundane” for our Arthur? 200k may be lot of money for you or I but would it be that extraordinary for someone doing business at the big end of town? Maybe not which would surely be the relevant point here.

Sinodinos needed the money to support his over-stretched lifestylye, Iain. I’ve mentioned that before and it’s documented that he was living beyond his means. The matters that he ‘can’t recall’ were major ones, such as the CEO telling him the company’s woes and a major investor doing likewise. How is it that everyone else can recall those conversations but not him? And how is that he could have no knowledge of the Liberal party donations AWH were making when he was Chair at one end and State Liberal Party Treasurer at the other?!!!? Or of the big retainers AWH were paying to lobby companies owned by his Liberal Party mates? Or of the Obeid’s involvement? Give me a break, Iain. The reality is Abbott’s Govt has a major rat in its ranks and you are playing the denial game (as is Sinodinos). Come on, you know it’s more-than-shifty, why not just admit it and call him for the fool/crook (alleged) that he most likely is? Come on, you’ll feel better for it.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Copyright

Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the "fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review" section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
let's look at the Australian Copyright Council's fact sheet on Fair Use:

The Federal Court has stated that “criticism and review” involves making a judgment of the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas. Criticism and review may be strongly expressed, and may be expressed humorously, and need not be balanced. The defence can apply where the criticism or review takes place in a commercial context, such as in published books or newspapers or on commercial television.

However, the court emphasised that the purpose of criticism or review must be genuine. If the person has other motives – especially if these motives involve using the material to make a profit, or using a competitor’s material to
divert customers from the competitor – the fact that they have also engaged in a form of criticism or review is not
enough to prevent the use from infringing copyright

All other content on this site is copyright Iain Hall and may not be reproduced in any form with out explicit permission of the author.

Comment Copyright

Anyone who comments at the Sandpit under a pseudonym does so on the clear understanding that by doing so they are giving any and all rights and ownership of those comments to the site-owner who may reproduce them in any form or at any other site or venue entirely at his own discretion.